He would have had a very knotty problem. That's why, in the thread I referred to earlier, I posited that Tessio's betrayal was probably the biggest break Michael ever caught--to say nothing of relieving Puzo and FFC from having to deal with that knotty problem.

One of the challenges we face while trying to answer the original question is defining terms like "code". I won't try to do it. Another challenge we face is trying to figure out when the massacre plan was formulated. It seems pretty clear from the novel that Vito started making plans right after the Dons meeting, maybe even before it. His first priority was to get Mike home safely, but then what? Massacre (although the novel limits it to two Dons)? Maybe. I think yes. The novel makes it clear that Vito was heavily involved in planning it. So, ask yourself, just what constitutes breaking one's word? Apple is convinved that Vito would have had to murder one of the Dons himself or to have directly ordered one of them murdered to have broken his word. Apple also seems to propose that the massacre wouldn't have taken place had the Barzinis not broken the peace first. I don't buy either. As Hagen observed: "All pointed to a day of reckoning in the future". Vito intended to murder Barzini and Tattaglia in good time and his planning of it breaks his word.

By the way, Tessio's betrayal was an aside. It added to the drama, to the pathos. That's all.

So does the film, to a lesser degree but just as obviously. Again, nobody is denying this.



Not at all. But he would have had to: 1. Meant for it to happen before Michael was set up for elimination, and 2. Been alive when it happened. Neither was the case, and therefore he did not break his word.



No, it doesn't, because the planning of the murders was in preparation for the offensive on Michael which was certain to come.



It wasn't. Vito had warned Michael of the traitor that would approach him with the meeting. That traitor turned out to be Tessio, who had conspired with Barzini to move in on Michael. The existence of the traitor AND his murder along with the rest would have been an integral part of the plan. It was just a matter of waiting to see who it would be.

That's all.

Vito did mean "for it to happen before Michael was set up for elimination..." No, he did not have to be alive when it happened. He was complicit in its planning and that breaks his word. It didn't matter what Barzini and Tattaglia did nor did not do - as far as Vito was concerned they were dead men. Had Vito lived beyond '55, Barzini and Tattaglia would have died as a result of his plan regardless of who pulled the triggers.

I agree 100%. If Vito lived until he was 90 years old, those guys still never make it out of the 1950s alive.

Although he was complicit in the plan, it was not implemented until after his death. Therefore, he did never did break his word.



They were 'dead men' because of what he knew they would do, were they given the opportunity. Still though, until they were in reality actually dead, MORTE...the peace was not broken. Vito did not break the peace, because he was already dead when the hits were carried out.



Perhaps...although what would've been necessary for that to occur, was for one of them to reach out to Michael (via the Family traitor), which would've indicated the trap Vito predicted as part of 'the plan'. Which would've meant THEY were about to break the peace first. What to do...allow another son to be blown away on a technicality...or be proactive??? No brainer.

But anyway Vito didn't live to see all that. Therefore, he didn't break the peace.



Y'know, I really keep meaning to drop out of this thread but you are just making it TOO MUCH FUN!!!

We know from the Novel that revenge was conceived of long before the Barzini offensive. Consider these words directly after the meeting:

Vito To Hagen: “Do you disapprove of any of my deeds today?”

Hagen to Don Vito: “No, but I don’t find it consistent, nor true to your nature. You say you don’t want to find out how Santino was killed or want vengeance for it. I don’t believe that. You gave your word for peace and so you’ll keep the peace but I can’t believe you will give your enemies the victory they seem to have won today. You’ve constructed a magnificent riddle that I can’t solve, so how can I approve or disapprove.”

Vito to Hagen: “Well you know me better than anyone else. Even though you’re not Sicilian, I made you one. Everything you say is true, but there’s a solution and you’ll comprehend it before it spins out to the end.”

Vito’s words clearly indicate a master plan has already been hatched and vengeance planned.

The novel also provides evidence of the Don’s uneasiness about the peace he’s made:

Vito to Michael: I would not have made that peace but that I knew you would never come home alive otherwise. I’m surprised, though, that Barizini still made a last try at you. Maybe it was arranged before the peace talk and he couldn’t stop it. Are you sure they were not after Don Tommasino?

The Don’s uneasiness about “that peace” (not “the peace”, “that peace” – presumably to reference the his swearing on souls ) coupled with his interest in the details of the Sicily hit tell us that Vito was seeking to identify Sicily as the provocation he could hang his hat. He even wanted to double check that it was not meant for Tommasino! Michael seemingly succeeded in pacifying the Don that it was meant for him, and the required provocation.

Don to Michael on Michael’s taking “all responsibility”: “So be it. Maybe that’s why I retired, maybe that’s why I’ve turned everything over to you. I’ve done my share in life. I haven’t got the heart anymore. And there are some duties the best of men can’t assume. That’s it then”.

I think this was Vito playing out his role in the end-game-- to step aside once it was all ready to go. The trumped up weakening of his will was the final attempt to unconnect himself from the massacre. This was the final act of the “Solution” that Vito referenced to Hagen “that has finally spun out to the end.” It was all planned.

Bravo Primo.

And Apple, I type so that your life can be "funner".

So Apple, since we have sourced references from the Novel that proves Vito's vengance seeking plan went into action before Michael was set up, are you prepared to reconsider your position?

Apple- Since you decided to disappear from this thread at its crescendo, I thought it would be appropriate to finish it up for you with one of your more astute observations.

Ok, the posts are too many to read all of them, so I apologize if this was said before, and if it was not said then I am AMAZED no one thought of it:

No one broke the promise that Vito made, not even Michael. the "Peace" was broken by the attempt to kill Mike after his father's funeral. To plot and begin to execute an assassination is breaking the peace, to fail in carrying it out does not mean that they (the other families) did not try, and trying is breaking the peace.

Now we know that Mike and Vito predicted it would happen, but no act was made to break the peace from the Corleone's side, what Mike did was REACT to a real threat; best defense is offense, simple.

As for Tom, it was a tactical move... in times of turbulence, no leader wants to be second-guessed; Tom was older and with greater experience working alongside Vito than Mike had, Mike needed absolute power, and he moved Tom out to protect him from becoming a liability to the family, he was an asset as a lawyer. in GF2 that lead to Tom temporarily taking over the family after the Lake Taho assassination attempt.

Desertwolf, you make a good point: Barzini technically moved first by engaging Tessio in a plot to assassinate Michael. But the fact remains that Michael and Vito had been anticipating Barzini's move before Vito died. So, it seemed, both Michael and Barzini made a tacit agreement: the peace that Vito and Barzini made at the Commission meeting would be honored--as long as both of them were alive.



Yes, it was a tactical move. In his quest to become "legitimate" in Nevada, he needed Tom to be established as his "legitimate" lawyer--far away from the NY violence he planned. He brought Tom back in after Vito died because he trusted Tom. But, as we saw in GFII, "trust" in Michael's case didn't necessarily mean that he relied on Tom's advice. Michael relied on no one other than himself. I think he needed Tom simply because he knew Tom was the one person wouldn't betray him.

Turnbull, thank you.
Anticipation and taking precautions towards anticipated threats is reactive, Barzini was proactive.
When Vito told mike in the back yard "Do you know how they will come at you?" and " the one that comes to you with the meeting is the traitor", he did not mean after his death, surely even the mighty Godfather could not predict his own death!; he meant as the move to Vegas progressed, and the consolidation of power became evident. Therefore, while you're right that they anticipated animosity... it was unrelated to Vito's death in my opinion, it was indeed like looking 3 moves ahead in a chess match.

This is my second day in the forum, and I love it already

Cheers

"When Vito told mike in the back yard "Do you know how they will come at you?"

That line was stated by Tom to Mike at Vito's funeral.

We had an interesting discussion a while back about whether or not Michael would have massacred Barzini and the others if Vito were still alive.


That's what it's all about here!

Olivant...
yes, you are right, but that does not change the fact that Vito predicted it to Mike...